limiting state school and college students to 3 A levels

[GnomeDePlume]

Apologies if this has already been done to death.

I saw the following article in Saturday's Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9349428/State-school-pupils-restricted-to-three-A-levels-under-funding-change.html

My suspician is that it is a bit of disinformation being put out there so that whatever is actually done doesnt seem so bad (sorry is my cynicism showing?).

If that is the case, what is the 'something' which is really being considered? I guess that there will be changes once everyone has to stay in some sort of education/training. If nothing else will some sort of restriction be brought in to keep costs down?

Isnt having some breadth in the 16-18 education a good thing?

No, just I remember the options meeting was just after the eBacc announcement and that was very much mentioned, so I thought there might have been some comment like 'you may have read in the papers today.....'

My three eldest DC only did three A2s each (2008, 2010, 2011) and not a single one of them seems limited, or educationally narrow. They've all kept up or are keeping up at uni. DC4 has just done four A2 and I can't see his outcome would have been in any way different had he only done three. If a student does three he has more time for other more independent stuff even though he might be able to do that with four. With four (or five), his time is rather more constricted. But really, it isn't a biggie.

Every government instigates changes & then before they've had a chance to bed in, they make even more changes!

Tbh 3 good A Levels has got to be better than 4 weak ones. DC's had to take 4 subjects at sixth form but not all of these had to be A Levels. DD went for 3 A Levels & an NVQ in Spanish. DS is going for 4 A Levels & because of his predictive grades, he was asked to consider taking 5 AS subjects. Sensibly he turned them down as his dyslexia would make it challenging for him to take on such a demanding workload.

In principle, I would never agree with Gove on anything so can't say this idea is good....but something has to give. DD might have coped better with 3 subjects & I believe DS would too.

Is this a bit of deja vu?

Degrees used to be respected until some numpty decided that 50% of the population should have them without thinking through the logic of it all and devalued them for everyone.
Some other numpty decided that the school leaving age should be raised from 16 to 18. Has someone got their calculator out and suddenly realised how expensive it will be?

I suspect we have a bit if a smokescreen here; in my day (sorry, I promise never to use that term again), we only took 3 A Levels with the jokingly inept General Studies which had no defined standing (universities ignored it). So, I've no problem in 'limiting' students to just 3. Oxbridge make offers based upon 3 A levels so what's the problem?

Well, to answer my own question, the problem is, and for a long time has been, the standard. If those A levels are academically robust and meaningful, 3 is enough. We all know, however, that they won't be. My belief is that general secondary teaching is now so bad that most schools simply wouldn't have the wherewithal to deliver academically robust material; the teachers themselves wouldn't understand it in many cases (in my defence, I cite the case of a new physics teacher at one of the highly regarded schools in our area, regularly lauded on this site, who actually asked if those pupils doing A level maths could help with the quantitative aspects on the physics course as she didn't quite understand it - one example of many where the teachers were 'confused').

Poor old Gove; I suspect he means well but longing for bygone years isn't enough to bring them about. We need a new generation of teachers. Problem is, the current ones, and most of the ones now entering the 'profession', are damaged goods.

My problem with limiting is that the fourth subject can have two purposes:

1. It allows a student to start 4 subjects for the first year then pick their strongest for the second year

1. It allows a student to do a course from the 'other' side - science student taking a humanity, humanity student taking maths or science, anybody taking a language

I dont see 16-18 education as being purely about getting into university. Naively perhaps I think it is has some value of its own.

On the whole I dont have the same dire view of current education that ewee has. Some of the schools in my area are pretty poor, there are a couple of good ones.

ewee do you really believe that teachers in general are too thick to teach a levels? You have mentioned one teacher who had problems with a specific aspect of one course and generalise that to all teachers?

I'm a teacher of RE and sometimes a level philosophy, my subject is vast. I often find I have to teach things I have not come across before. So what I do is I research the subject before I teach the lesson. Even then I have to tell the students I don't know the answers to some of thier more obscure questions but I will find out, or I tell them to find out and tell me.

Does that mean I don't have the wherewithall to deliver academically robust teaching?

No MadamFolly, I didn't mean to imply that ALL teachers are thick, just some. Problem is, that these are unleashed upon the unsuspecting along with the good teachers.

(You sound like one of the good ones!)

I did three A levels and got good top grades in them and went to a good university. I knew the subjects I wanted to do, they were fine for my degree subject, so why do one more 'AS' just for the sake of it, when this way I had an easy work load and could concentrate on them? taking beyond 4 subjects is just unnecessary.

I took 3 A levels and got top grades in them and went to a good university. I knew the subjects I wanted to do and they were fine for my degree subject. Why would I want to do a 4th AS, just for the sake of it? I had an easy work load this way and doing beyond 4 subjects is completely uneceesary

Well, maybe if you hadn't known what you wanted to do at 16, you would have welcomed an extra year to consider your choice, Shoebox?